BENNETT: Why more school buses are not the answer

Some of the management deficiencies, irregular practices and operational inefficiencies of Stock Transportation were pointed out in 2015, writes Paul Bennett. - Eric Wynne

“The wheels on the bus go ’round and ’round” is one popular children’s rhyme that keeps ringing in your ears. When the wheels stop, or fall off, as is the case of the Halifax region’s schools, it disrupts the lives of hundreds of families and completely messes up the start of the school year.

Education Minister Zach Churchill has intervened to tout a student transportation review and come up with $1.9 million for more buses. What’s really needed is a comprehensive operational audit and a Stock Transportation contract exit strategy.

Some of the management deficiencies, irregular practices and operational inefficiencies were raised in our January 2015 AIMS “Education on Wheels” report. More serious matters speaking to deeper problems related to regulation violations, bus driver fatigue and lapses in student safety, have cropped up since then.

Awarding the latest Halifax regional centre for education 10-year contract to Stock Transportation in 2015 looks like a poor decision now that a string of incidents have exposed a growing pile of complaints: firing two Stock drivers who blew the whistle on unsafe driving practices, a UARB decision citing a litany of licence violations, hosting senior HRSB staff at a P.E.I. summer lobster party and the poorly planned introduction of “BusPlanner” software, creating chaos in Bedford-area schools. Why HRCE and Stock introduced the new bus-scheduling software and tracking system remains a mystery to parents and the public.

Student transportation costs are taking a bigger and bigger bite out of education spending, rising from five per cent to eight per cent of the provincial education budget in recent years. In other provinces, introducing such technological changes has been justified as a cost-reduction measure. If it’s actually about being more efficient and improving service, then you must demonstrate those advantages to your ridership.

This much is clear: Churchill and the department should be looking at a comprehensive audit plan and a contract exit strategy.

There’s no need to reinvent the wheel. The Ontario Ministry of Education has, since 2008, contracted with Deloitte Management to carry out a whole cycle of “effectiveness & efficiency reviews” targeting the consortia of joint transportation services.

You can be sure, judging from recent reports, that HRCE-Stock operations would not stand up well under such scrutiny. Have key performance indicators (KPIs) been identified and are they being met? Who is overseeing the monitoring of that performance?

“Determining which students are eligible for service provides the foundation for planning and, when administered consistently,” says Deloitte, “helps to control costs, ensures equitable service, and helps to sustain planned levels of service.” It’s clear from recent radio interviews that HRCE sometimes had no idea who was riding on Stock buses.

A Deloitte audit of HRCE-Stock operations would assess the effectiveness of regulatory oversight and zero in on some of the most challenging issues, including student ride times, courtesy busing, alternative drop-off points, student discipline, dispute resolution, bell time management, policy enforcement gaps and accident/incident reports.

School bus system reviews inevitably tackle the central question of contracting out the service to private bus operators and the wisdom of entering into lengthy 10-year contracts.

Two multinational giants, Students First and Stock Transportation, rule the Ontario market where private operators manage 90 per cent of school bus services. It’s no secret that, since 2014, unionized drivers represented by Unifor have been fighting tooth and nail against the “Request for Proposals trap” and its impact on wages and workplace standards.

Contracting out bus operations can produce some initial cost saving for school districts, but over time that advantage disappears. Switching from privatized to government-run services makes sense, provided you keep contracts short and a competitive market. One 2009 Minnesota School District study, covering a six-year period, demonstrated that switching can reduce costs from 15.8 to 20 per cent.

Close collaboration with private bus operators can also lead to both “supplier capture” and “collusion” in the awarding of contracts. The HRCE contract for $16 million a year, lasting until 2025, is worth some $160 million or more. It’s clear from recent events that the HRCE-Stock relationship is far too close for comfort.

Getting out of the Stock contract would not be easy, but it can be done. Four years ago, the Ottawa Student Transportation Authority did it.

Stock Transportation’s once sterling reputation has taken a tremendous hit. Since the 2002 takeover by National Express Company, Stock is not the same company. It has revenues of over $1 billion, and here in Nova Scotia, it operates 500 vehicles and employs 600 drivers.

Providing more buses may satisfy upset parents, but it sidesteps the critical issues raised about the efficiency and effectiveness of the school bus service. It’s time to consider ending the monopoly and introducing more competition into the bus market, either through restored public services or better performing, properly managed private contractors.